Taylor Approximation: Error Calculation Tool?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the use of Taylor series for approximating differential equations and the associated error calculations over time. The Lagrange remainder term is highlighted as a mathematical tool for estimating maximum error when truncating a Taylor series. However, the original query delves deeper into how this error behaves in the long run when simplifying a differential equation. It is noted that truncating certain functions can lead to significant changes in the system's behavior, potentially altering fixed points and phase space topology. The conversation suggests that while local linearization can provide insights, it may not fully capture long-term dynamics.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Often you use taylor series to approximate differential equations for easier solving. An example is the small angle approximation to the pendulum. My question is: Is there mathematical tool for calculating the error you make as time goes with such an approximation? Because I could Imagine it gets bigger and bigger with time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course: Lagrange's remainder term for a Taylor's seriers truncated at the nth term, (f^{(n)}(x_0)/n!) (x- x_0)^n, is (f^{(n)}(c)/(n+1)!) (x- x_0)^{n+1}, where c is a number between x and x_0, is given in any Calculus text, as well as at this website, http://www.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/calculus/tayerr/tayerr.html , and can be used to find the maximum possible error by replacing f^{(n+1)}(c) with an upper bound on the n+1 derivative between x_0 and x and taking the absolute value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
Of course: Lagrange's remainder term for a Taylor's seriers truncated at the nth term, (f^{(n)}(x_0)/n!) (x- x_0)^n, is (f^{(n)}(c)/(n+1)!) (x- x_0)^{n+1}, where c is a number between x and x_0, is given in any Calculus text, as well as at this website, http://www.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/calculus/tayerr/tayerr.html , and can be used to find the maximum possible error by replacing f^{(n+1)}(c) with an upper bound on the n+1 derivative between x_0 and x and taking the absolute value.

His original question has a more complicated answer, if any: he want to know how the error behaves in the long run if he replaces, say, the DE dy/dt = f(y,t) by a simpler DE dy/dt = f0(y,t), where f0 is obtained from f by truncating a Taylor expansion.

I don't know the answer to his question, but I suspect lots of work has been done on problems of that type.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ray Vickson said:
His original question has a more complicated answer, if any: he want to know how the error behaves in the long run if he replaces, say, the DE dy/dt = f(y,t) by a simpler DE dy/dt = f0(y,t), where f0 is obtained from f by truncating a Taylor expansion.

I don't know the answer to his question, but I suspect lots of work has been done on problems of that type.

If \dot x = f(t) and one truncates f(t), then there is almost certainly a suitable remainder expression which one can integrate to get a bound on the error.

Truncating \dot x = f(x) is much more difficult.

Aside from anything else, truncating a polynomial means that one loses roots, which means one potentially loses fixed points. That alters the topology of the phase space, so that solutions starting from the same point may display radically different long-term behaviour.

One can see this in the case of
\dot x = x(1-x)
subject to x(0) = 3 where x(t) \to 1 as t \to \infty and
\dot x = x
where |x(t)| \to \infty for any x(0) \neq 0.

There are results such as the Hartman-Grobman theorem which gives conditions on when a system behaves like its linearization near a fixed point, but it only applies locally (ie sufficiently close to the fixed point).
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K